This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

Steinberg’s speech is, he tells us, “a little preliminary warning I deliver to people who might not be fully cognizant, who might not be factoring in all the consequences of publicity:

“You understand I write for a newspaper. That I’m talking to you because I’m going to put what you say into an article, which will appear in the newspaper, which people will then read.”

What do journalists owe their sources and those they report on when seeking consent for an interview? Do these people clearly understand what they are getting into when they agree to talk to a journalist? Are all journalists as clear and explicit with their subjects and sources as Steinberg? Should we be? Or should we go further and seek to inform our sources of any potential risks of sharing their stories in the media?

Journalists report in the public interest and rarely discuss or debate what our responsibilities might be to those who talk to us, particularly those “vulnerable” non-expert sources with little understanding of the media and how journalists work.

Article Continued Below

I have spent considerable time examining these questions as part of a Canadian Association of Journalists ethics advisory committee panel on what constitutes consent in journalism. Our recently released paper “On the record: Is it really informed consent without discussion of consequences?” delves into how journalists gain consent for information from their subjects and sources, especially those who are vulnerable.

This was a thought-provoking exercise. As we state in the paper, which is presented as a debate between Levine, arguing for one side, and Enkin, Sher and I, another, “We were caught between two really important competing values — serving the public interest and minimizing harm.

“Consent protocols felt like a rabbit hole that could undermine our ability to tell important stories.”

Levine’s perspective was rooted in her Master’s thesis, which examined whether consent protocols in journalism should be strengthened, in line with more official consent protocols required in academic and health research.

The Star’s policy requires that in seeking information, our reporters clearly identify themselves as journalists working on a story for publication. With Enkin and Sher, I argued against Levine’s case for more formal consent protocols. We told her we believe this is unnecessary and unworkable in deadline-driven journalism.

Certainly sources must clearly understand they are speaking to a journalist. As we told Levine, that then “presumes subjects have free will in deciding whether to open themselves to a journalist’s request for information.”

We also see practical problems in determining how far journalists should or could go in informing sources of potential risks of talking to them for publication. “Where would journalists draw the line? What constitutes harm, and how can a journalist be responsible for determining that?

“Journalists are not social workers. Our overriding duty is to the public and the public interest. It is of course important to think about the impact of our work on our sources, but each situation will determine a unique answer.”

Levine contends that sources don’t always clearly understand what’s at stake in talking with a journalist: “Just because sources know they are talking to a reporter doesn’t mean they understand that what they say could be published. Journalists know this is the way the game is played, but this isn’t necessarily the case for the average citizen.”

We agree journalists have responsibility to make clear to sources that what they tell them may be published in print or online. This matters all the more in this era when all published information lives online forever and can be easily shared on social media. We commend Steinberg’s practice of providing subjects with a clear and fair warning that what they tell him will be published.

Mostly our panel agreed to disagree on any further consent requirements. But we did agree that vulnerable sources — those people who are inexperienced with the media and often thrust into the news because of tragedy — may indeed merit special consideration.

“At a minimum, news organizations should have a working understanding or definition of who ‘vulnerable’ subjects are, and whether there are steps that should be considered before publicly identifying him or her and all of the information revealed to the journalist,” we concluded.

We also agreed on the need for more discussion among journalists about our obligations to sources. Levine and Sher will lead a workshop on this at the CAJ conference in Vancouver, May 10.As we conclude: “This is an important discussion for journalists and critical to questions of journalism’s credibility.”

Correction – April 28, 2014: This article was edited from a previous version that said Western University professor Meredith Levine had advocated for more formal consent protocols such as requiring sources to sign consent forms to indicate their understanding of potential risks. In fact Levine had advocated only for requiring verbal consent from sources.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com